Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Fox News- obviously journalism!

Posts

The reason why MSNBC leans liberal is that Reality and things that are actually happening have a notorious liberal bias. When they report on things actually happening (unlike fox news) there will be by US standards a liberal bias, because it's simply the way the world is.

So when Hillary Clinton's campaign noted how fucking biased MSNBC was for Obama over her, that was their truth bias shining through.

Good to know.

You're using the Hillary Clinton campaign as a source for bias against them? Sure that makes sense, I mean they have no reason to report differently.

Everyone who is unfairly represented has a reason to report it.

MSNBC's bias isn't a liberal bias. It's an Obama bias. Handed down on high from GE. I'm not saying it's fox news, before anyone starts up with false equivalency BS, but it's pretty biased.

EDIT:
From the wiki

Following several years in which many observers noted politically liberal bias in the channel's programming and news operations, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive agenda in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward."[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In a June 2011 interview, MSNBC president Phil Griffin stated that "MSNBC has established a sensibility, a position, a platform" and that "MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives.

Once a news network has established a position and a platform, it doesn't get to be called "unbiased".

"Many observers" is pretty damn vague. Why should I care what they think about MSNBC? Btw, while he says the channel is for progressives I don't see Scarborough getting fired or conservative leaning anchors, contributers & reporters getting banned en mass. It isn't Fox News where the opposition are like unicorns.

Once a news network has established a position and a platform, it doesn't get to be called "unbiased".

How relevant is that platform though? I mean, Fox's position is 'fair and balanced', which is a falsehood, and definitely not reflected in their content. So, I'm not sure if it's prudent to take MSNBC's position as an indicator of their overall content. They can say one thing and do whatever else they want. Though, I'm not familiar enough with MSNBC's actual content to comment on any actual bias, aside from Maddow, which as far as I can tell, covers more factual circumstance than anything else.

Once a news network has established a position and a platform, it doesn't get to be called "unbiased".

How relevant is that platform though? I mean, Fox's position is 'fair and balanced', which is a falsehood, and definitely not reflected in their content. So, I'm not sure if it's prudent to take MSNBC's position as an indicator of their overall content. They can say one thing and do whatever else they want. Though, I'm not familiar enough with MSNBC's actual content to comment on any actual bias, aside from Maddow, which as far as I can tell, covers more factual circumstance than anything else.

So your stance is that MSNBC might not be biased, even though it claims it is?

I'm not sure how to respond to that. Maybe MSNBC is so incompetent that they can't even get their own bias right?

Fox actually reads GOP memos and ALEC releases on air. They have marching orders saying what they should cover. It's an elaborate propaganda machine.

MSNBC? They suspended Olbermann for donating to the DNC. Half of Fox News' personalities are current or former members of the GOP establishment. MSNBC doesn't have a centralized directive to follow the DNC marching orders. MSNBC doesn't encourage employees to spy on other employees to make sure they're in lock step in both their personal and professional lives.

I don't think Fox literally wrote and sent talking points to the GOP, but congresscritters watch Fox and glean talking points from it because they're often better written and more catch phrasey than what they come up with

What I mean is GOP memos passed around the GOP leadership have literally been read on fox news when as a news organization they should never have had access to them

Oh okay, someone brought this up already. But yeah, there we go. Even though there's freedom of the press, I would think that slanderous and libelous material would be against the rules. Nope. Go for it, so says a poor court judgment.

Money is speech, my friend.

Also, how about how their funding and coverage basically created the whole tea party 'thing'?

Make no mistake by the way, people working for Fox News don't necessarily buy into it. I've heard Megan Kelly or whatever her name is outside of the world of Fox and she's relatively sane. She'll say, for the sake of defending having a career, she's conservative, but the way she carries herself, the things she talks about, nowhere near her Fox News persona. I think they get paid damn well and that's why they do what they do. Not to say there aren't people there who do buy into that shit (see Glenn Beck) but they're probably a minority.

I think I've seen some youtube videos out there of her before and after working for Fox News. Two completely different people.

CNN is basically baby's first news network anymore. Most of the time they're all right if you just want to see what's going on, but the minute they try to dissect something they start up the equivocation theatre.

Coopster is usually all right, but Blitzer and King are worthless anymore.

Make no mistake by the way, people working for Fox News don't necessarily buy into it. I've heard Megan Kelly or whatever her name is outside of the world of Fox and she's relatively sane. She'll say, for the sake of defending having a career, she's conservative, but the way she carries herself, the things she talks about, nowhere near her Fox News persona. I think they get paid damn well and that's why they do what they do. Not to say there aren't people there who do buy into that shit (see Glenn Beck) but they're probably a minority.

I think I've seen some youtube videos out there of her before and after working for Fox News. Two completely different people.

Though I tend to think Glenn is also a paid mercenary

In my mind, this is worse than being honestly terrible, because then at least you're being honest. You can hold some horrible opinions and be an overall shit-heel, and I'll call you out on it and mock you, but at least those horrible opinions are your own and not an act you put on to keep your job/get ratings/get promoted. If it's an act, it's one that your followers think is not an act, it's a legitimate viewpoint to hold. It's like the leader of the KKK coming out like, "Nah I'm actually totally okay with black people, but this paycheck is really good yo."

Remember when Jon Stewart went on CNN Crossfire and told them to their faces that what they did was theatre and it was hurting America? It's that writ large.

First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS

0

AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular

CNN is basically baby's first news network anymore. Most of the time they're all right if you just want to see what's going on, but the minute they try to dissect something they start up the equivocation theatre.

Coopster is usually all right, but Blitzer and King are worthless anymore.

I already know about the bullshit that comes from Fox News, but can anyone tell me what's wrong with CNN?

It's supposed to be a liberal network, and yet it's almost just as scorned around here as Fox. Why?

Okay, that's not fair: if you watch the episode, the questions he got wrong - mostly - were technical errors in wording the answers, and being bad at general trivia doesn't mean you're stupid.

But whatever. Look at his fucking score.

CNN, far more than Fox News, represents everything that is wrong with contemporary 24 hour news networks. Yes, Fox is an obvious propaganda outlet - but CNN is seen as a 'legitimate' news organization and all that they ever do is pretend that any given interlocutors have equal merit. If you put a Neo Nazi and a historian from the Holocaust Museum into a CNN talking head segment about whether or not the holocaust took place, CNN would present 'both sides' as though there is not 1 very clear and obvious 'side' that is the truth.

They also define the outer limits of the national conversation by choosing which political groups & subcultures will / will not get a voice on TV. CNN is hugely responsible, for example, for the continuing stigmatization of narcotics & people who use narcotics (even though most of the fucking population use illegal drugs, CNN & similar news networks pretend that it's some fringe activity that only stupid teens & career criminals engage in).

Ahhhh, Fox News. Let us LOOK BACK IN TIME. The World Trade Towers have collapsed due to the acts of terrorists from Afghanistan. Congress is debating going to war with Iraq. (Many Americans believing, at the time, that Iraq was the one behind 9/11, because we are idiots who cannot tell apart one country from another as long as they contain only brown people.)

So, as this debate goes on, what does Fox air? I will tell you what Fox airs, my friend. Fox airs a segment . . . about how mean Iraqi scientists . . . do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies! OMG, THOSE POOR PUPPIES!!!

Fox neglects to mention that scientists in the United States also do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies.

Ahhhh, Fox News. Let us LOOK BACK IN TIME. The World Trade Towers have collapsed due to the acts of terrorists from Afghanistan. Congress is debating going to war with Iraq. (Many Americans believing, at the time, that Iraq was the one behind 9/11, because we are idiots who cannot tell apart one country from another as long as they contain only brown people.)

So, as this debate goes on, what does Fox air? I will tell you what Fox airs, my friend. Fox airs a segment . . . about how mean Iraqi scientists . . . do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies! OMG, THOSE POOR PUPPIES!!!

Fox neglects to mention that scientists in the United States also do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies.

And if it got pointed out to them, it'd turn into science being evil and suddenly they're talking about stem cell beagle puppy clone Hitlers.

Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.

Ahhhh, Fox News. Let us LOOK BACK IN TIME. The World Trade Towers have collapsed due to the acts of terrorists from Afghanistan. Congress is debating going to war with Iraq. (Many Americans believing, at the time, that Iraq was the one behind 9/11, because we are idiots who cannot tell apart one country from another as long as they contain only brown people.)

So, as this debate goes on, what does Fox air? I will tell you what Fox airs, my friend. Fox airs a segment . . . about how mean Iraqi scientists . . . do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies! OMG, THOSE POOR PUPPIES!!!

Fox neglects to mention that scientists in the United States also do MEAN EXPERIMENTS on cute little beagle puppies.

I will say this in Fox's defense: most people who watch it have already entrenched themselves in that political front. Fox is less about swaying people and more about tossing meat to it's ugly fanbase.

Of course, they're still part of the TV discussion, and it's a part we could all do without, but I don't know that Fox was as culpable as CNN or the print media in spreading Bush's lies about Iraq.

it does sway people, though. Fox News' existence in the last decade is basically a case study on the overton window.

Yes, it sways people in that it's part of how TV frames narrative, but I'm doubtful that it's as effective at deception as, say, CNN is. Now, it's effectiveness at shaping actual legislation is quite another matter, and quite frightening.

Okay, so then what's the story with CNBC?

CNBC is a financial news network with a 'all of our anchors are on fucking speed' format. I can't stand to watch or listen to more than 5 minutes of it at a time, partly because I disagree with the ideological position the network has (very pro laissez faire) and partly because Holy shit these guys are on speed.

Jim Kramer is an awful human being with a shitty ethos (but apparently his stock picks are pretty good. Except when he gave everyone bad advice which he personally profited from during the meltdown. Whoops). Melissa Lee is an insane New Zealand nationalist.

Aside from those two, the cast of the anchors seem okay-ish, given the overall format.

it does sway people, though. Fox News' existence in the last decade is basically a case study on the overton window.

Yes, it sways people in that it's part of how TV frames narrative, but I'm doubtful that it's as effective at deception as, say, CNN is. Now, it's effectiveness at shaping actual legislation is quite another matter, and quite frightening.

I think Fox News might actually be more influential in Congressional politics than it is in changing the outcome of elections. Like you said, most Fox News aficionados are hardcore republicans anyway, but all the Republican congressman know that, unless they follow the same message of Fox News, they're going to face a well funded primary opponent who will accuse them of not being a true conservative. Then, too, when you have Fox News framing the right, it's easy for "centrists" like CNN to be like "well some are saying this on the right, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle".

it does sway people, though. Fox News' existence in the last decade is basically a case study on the overton window.

Yes, it sways people in that it's part of how TV frames narrative, but I'm doubtful that it's as effective at deception as, say, CNN is. Now, it's effectiveness at shaping actual legislation is quite another matter, and quite frightening.

I think Fox News might actually be more influential in Congressional politics than it is in changing the outcome of elections. Like you said, most Fox News aficionados are hardcore republicans anyway, but all the Republican congressman know that, unless they follow the same message of Fox News, they're going to face a well funded primary opponent who will accuse them of not being a true conservative. Then, too, when you have Fox News framing the right, it's easy for "centrists" like CNN to be like "well some are saying this on the right, so the truth must be somewhere in the middle".

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Aside from that, I also think it's just outright unethical to give persons like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity a large media platform to shout from, regardless of how influential they are. Murdoch basically uses them to lie & spread racism via proxy.

Didn't Robert Ailes pretty much make almost impossible for Murdoch to run the shitty fox show any more. Murdoch is still a shitty human being for letting Ailes have the keys and things might not be much better if he could call the shots at fox.

Didn't Robert Ailes pretty much make almost impossible for Murdoch to run the shitty fox show any more. Murdoch is still a shitty human being for letting Ailes have the keys and things might not be much better if he could call the shots at fox.

I'd doubt this, unless you have a source that tells this story?

Murdoch rules Newscorp and all of the little goblins it's spawned like a deranged step-mother.

With Love and Courage

0

AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular

Or his bullet-proof glass office that protects him from the homosexual terrorists.

And Fox News is highly influential in that it basically sets the GOP platform on alot of issues and because it does everything in it's power to manufacture pro-GOP narratives that the other stupid networks and news media occasionally pick up on cause they are terrible at their jobs. It does it constantly and consistently and even though it only succeeds 1 time in 10, it still succeeds and it manufactures enough of them every day that even 10% making it through is alot.

Lately I've been at a loss to find a good news outlet I can regularly go to. I usually just get my news from the Internet or word-of-mouth, but my dad (a hardcore conservative republican) always beats it over my head that he wants to hear where I get my news from. I think I need to get some clear answers for him just to get him off my back, but also because it be real nice to have an outlet that isn't tainted by the usual network BS.

Lately I've been at a loss to find a good news outlet I can regularly go to. I usually just get my news from the Internet or word-of-mouth, but my dad (a hardcore conservative republican) always beats it over my head that he wants to hear where I get my news from. I think I need to get some clear answers for him just to get him off my back, but also because it be real nice to have an outlet that isn't tainted by the usual network BS.